M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the defendant -appellant is against the judgment of reversal.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed Title Suit No. 08 of 1977 for a declaration that the post of Chaukidar is hereditary and that the order dated 6.10.1969 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara appointing Ratan Rai as Chaukidar is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought a relief for a decree of recovery of possession of the suit land which is in possession of the defendant allegedly as a trespasser. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff's case is that his father Bihari Rai was the Chaukidar of village Saluka, P.S. Nala in the district of Jamtara and was in possession of Jote No. 63 as Chaukidari Jagir land. Bihari Rai worked as Jagir Holder Chaukidar of village Saluka for a long time. Subsequently he became physically unfit and, therefore, allowed his brother Ratan Rai to worl as Chaukidar in his place because his son (plaintiff) was minor. After attaining majority, the plaintiff filed petition on 9.12.1968 before the S.D.O., Jamtara for appointment as Chaukidar in place of his father Bihari Rai. His petition was ultimately rejected by the S.D.O. by order dated 6.10.1959. The plaintiff filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and revision before the Commissioner, but the order of S.D.O. was affirmed. Plaintiff's case is that the post of Chaukidar is hereditary and, therefore, he should have been appointed as Chaukidar in place of his father. The plaintiff's further case is that Ratan Rai had no right to possess the land of Jot No. 63 which stands recorded in the name of Bihari Rai as Chaukidari Jagir Man Land.
(3.) THE defendant -appellant contested the suit by filing written statement The case of the defendant -appellant is that when Bihari Rai, father of the plaintiff, became physically unfit to render the services as Chaukidar, he was duly appointed as Chaukidar of village Saluka by S.D.O., Jamtara by order dated 6.10.1969 passed in Chaukidari Saha No. 35 of 1969. Defendant's case is that Ratan Rai came in possession of the land after his appointment as Chaukidar. According to the defendant, the post of Chaukidar is not hereditary and the plaintiff cannot claim any right to the post of Chaukidar. The defendant has also prayed that his possession of the suit land cannot be said to be that of trespasser because he is performing the duty of Chaukidar.;